Astus wrote:When the cause, ignorance, is gone, then clinging does not occur again, because the cause does not occur any more. It is not a state one stays in.

And I think that is a dogmatic view. The transitoriness of everything applies to the domain of name and form and to sensory experience. Power, possessions, children, the body, life, status, history, and everything else that can be experienced is transitory. But I don't believe 'awakening to the deathless' is a transitory state.

It exists” is an eternalist view; “It does not exist” is an annihilationist idea.

That is the exact phrase I was referring to. I think a lot of what is said about the non-reality of experience falls into the latter category.

Wayfarer wrote:And I think that is a dogmatic view. The transitoriness of everything applies to the domain of name and form and to sensory experience. Power, possessions, children, the body, life, status, history, and everything else that can be experienced is transitory. But I don't believe 'awakening to the deathless' is a transitory state.

If you say that awakening is a state, it is an impermanent mental phenomenon. What I said is that with the cessation of the cause (ignorance) the effect (suffering) cannot occur. This is what the four noble truths talk about. And that is how liberation cannot turn into bondage again.

That is the exact phrase I was referring to. I think a lot of what is said about the non-reality of experience falls into the latter category.

The unreality of appearances would fall into the category of non-existence if there were something that could actually cease to exist. But since there has never been a self, liberation is not the destruction of self.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

Anonymous X wrote:Realization is a mental process? Perhaps you can explain this to us.

It is a mental process, as it is about confirming in personal experience the truth of the Dharma. To stay with Nagarjuna:

"Through the elimination of karma and affliction there is nirvana.
Karma and affliction come from conceptual thought.
These come from mental fabrication.
Fabrication ceases through emptiness."
(MMK 18.5, in Ocean of Reasoning, p 377)

If this were a mental process, then many of the posters here would have realization as many have understood the Madhyamaka emptiness. But, this is clearly not the case as most of the understanding is an intellectual one and is not on the intrinsic level of being. To quote Padmasambhava, “Now, when you are introduced to your own intrinsic awareness, the method for entering into it involves three considerations :
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,
Awareness at that moment in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
Only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever. It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.”

Even the 6th Patriarch in his Platform Sutra spoke of "no-mind".
Zongmi often mentions "no-mindfulness".

Madhyamaka is seen as a stepping stone in the so called step by step schools because it is not a direct pointing to the original nature or Tathagatagarbha. I'm not trying to diminish its importance, though. This is why I don't accept that realization is a mental process. It may 'seem' like it, but this is not realization. Of course, your definition may be different, but I see it as another concept you believe in.

Anonymous X wrote:If this were a mental process, then many of the posters here would have realization as many have understood the Madhyamaka emptiness. But, this is clearly not the case as most of the understanding is an intellectual one and is not on the intrinsic level of being.

There are three stages of wisdom (prajna): learning (sruta), understanding (cinta), application (bhavana). In other words, one cannot understand what one hasn't learnt, and one cannot apply what one has not understood. It is at the stage of application that one personalises the teaching on an experiential level.

Madhyamaka is seen as a stepping stone in the so called step by step schools because it is not a direct pointing to the original nature or Tathagatagarbha. I'm not trying to diminish its importance, though. This is why I don't accept that realization is a mental process. It may 'seem' like it, but this is not realization. Of course, your definition may be different, but I see it as another concept you believe in.

Those you call "direct pointing" merely say that one should realise that the mind is empty. How is that different from Madhyamaka?

"The fields of the Buddha are all identical to space. The wondrous natures of people of this world are empty, without a single dharma that can be perceived. The emptiness of the self-natures is also like this."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK ed, p 28)

"since the past this teaching of ours has first taken nonthought as its central doctrine, the formless as its essence, and nonabiding as its fundamental. The formless is to transcend characteristics within the context of characteristics. Nonthought is to be without thought in the context of thoughts. Nonabiding is to consider in one’s fundamental nature that all worldly [things] are empty, with no consideration of retaliation—whether good or evil, pleasant or ugly, and enemy or friend, etc., during times of words, fights, and disputation."
(ch 4, p 43)

Zhihuang said, “What does the Sixth Patriarch take as meditation?”
Xuance said, “What our master preaches is the wondrously peaceful and perfectly quiescent: the essence and functions are suchlike, suchlike. The five skandhas are fundamentally empty, the six [types of] sensory data are nonexistent. One does not enter and come out of [samādhi], one is neither concentrated nor disturbed. Meditation is in its nature nonabiding, and the serenity of meditation transcends abiding. Meditation in its nature is birthless, and the thoughts of meditation transcend birth. The mind is like space, but it is without any thinking of space.”
(ch 7, p 69)

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

Anonymous X wrote:If this were a mental process, then many of the posters here would have realization as many have understood the Madhyamaka emptiness. But, this is clearly not the case as most of the understanding is an intellectual one and is not on the intrinsic level of being.

There are three stages of wisdom (prajna): learning (sruta), understanding (cinta), application (bhavana). In other words, one cannot understand what one hasn't learnt, and one cannot apply what one has not understood. It is at the stage of application that one personalises the teaching on an experiential level.

Madhyamaka is seen as a stepping stone in the so called step by step schools because it is not a direct pointing to the original nature or Tathagatagarbha. I'm not trying to diminish its importance, though. This is why I don't accept that realization is a mental process. It may 'seem' like it, but this is not realization. Of course, your definition may be different, but I see it as another concept you believe in.

Those you call "direct pointing" merely say that one should realise that the mind is empty. How is that different from Madhyamaka?

"The fields of the Buddha are all identical to space. The wondrous natures of people of this world are empty, without a single dharma that can be perceived. The emptiness of the self-natures is also like this."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK ed, p 28)

"since the past this teaching of ours has first taken nonthought as its central doctrine, the formless as its essence, and nonabiding as its fundamental. The formless is to transcend characteristics within the context of characteristics. Nonthought is to be without thought in the context of thoughts. Nonabiding is to consider in one’s fundamental nature that all worldly [things] are empty, with no consideration of retaliation—whether good or evil, pleasant or ugly, and enemy or friend, etc., during times of words, fights, and disputation."
(ch 4, p 43)

Zhihuang said, “What does the Sixth Patriarch take as meditation?”
Xuance said, “What our master preaches is the wondrously peaceful and perfectly quiescent: the essence and functions are suchlike, suchlike. The five skandhas are fundamentally empty, the six [types of] sensory data are nonexistent. One does not enter and come out of [samādhi], one is neither concentrated nor disturbed. Meditation is in its nature nonabiding, and the serenity of meditation transcends abiding. Meditation in its nature is birthless, and the thoughts of meditation transcend birth. The mind is like space, but it is without any thinking of space.”
(ch 7, p 69)

No one denies the importance of emptiness, but that is only a gateway, and still a view. Even Nagarjuna cautioned against holding on to this view. It is still the self-thought grasping for a foothold.

What Padmasambhava is saying in his 'Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness' treatise is not 'merely' that mind is empty. He is inviting us to let go of all our views, thoughts, concepts about mind and anything else, for that matter, and meet/be this Intrinsic Awareness that is right here, right now. And, through that 'lens', everything else is illumined. It's really quite a beautiful teaching. I encourage you to read it if you haven't done so already.

"How wonderful!
This immediate intrinsic awareness is insubstantial and lucidly clear.
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all views.
It is all-encompassing, free of everything, and without any conceptions whatsoever:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all meditations.
It is unfabricated and inexpressible in worldly terms:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all courses of conduct.
Without being sought after, it is spontaneously self-perfected from the very beginning:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all fruits."

Anonymous X wrote:No one denies the importance of emptiness, but that is only a gateway, and still a view. Even Nagarjuna cautioned against holding on to this view. It is still the self-thought grasping for a foothold.

Since Nagarjuna cautioned about taking emptiness to be a view, how could he have taught it as a view?

"The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the elimination of all views.
Anyone for whom emptiness is a view
Is incorrigible."
(MMK 13.8, in Ocean of Reasoning, p 298)

In other words, emptiness is not a view. But, to relinquish all views, one needs to first learn and then understand what emptiness means.

What Padmasambhava is saying in his 'Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness' treatise is not 'merely' that mind is empty. He is inviting us to let go of all our views, thoughts, concepts about mind and anything else, for that matter

Letting go of everything, that has been the teaching of the Buddha from the beginning, that is what it's all about, and that's what you find in Madhyamaka as well.

and meet/be this Intrinsic Awareness that is right here, right now.

What is that intrinsic awareness? Is it the same or different from the aggregates?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

Astus wrote:
What is that intrinsic awareness? Is it the same or different from the aggregates?

Read Padmasambhava's treatise. Read Longchenpa's 'Great Perfection', read Zongmi's description of the nature of mind as Knowing-Seeing. These are direct teachings that take you right to the heart of the matter. Nothing to memorize. You get it or you don't. It's not a college exam. No learning is necessary.

I'm asking about your interpretation, your view, what you call "intrinsic awareness". If one takes it to be something other than the aggregates, it is no different from the mistaken view of the self. If it is not different from the aggregates, it cannot be called intrinsic.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

I'm asking about your interpretation, your view, what you call "intrinsic awareness". If one takes it to be something other than the aggregates, it is no different from the mistaken view of the self. If it is not different from the aggregates, it cannot be called intrinsic.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

I'm asking about your interpretation, your view, what you call "intrinsic awareness". If one takes it to be something other than the aggregates, it is no different from the mistaken view of the self. If it is not different from the aggregates, it cannot be called intrinsic.

I'm asking about your interpretation, your view, what you call "intrinsic awareness". If one takes it to be something other than the aggregates, it is no different from the mistaken view of the self. If it is not different from the aggregates, it cannot be called intrinsic.

My view is unimportant. My suggestion for you to read these things is for you to have your own view. It is worthless without your own engagement, just like repeating Madhyamaka views. It's quite boring, actually to listen to it all. There's no energy in this kind of repetition.

Astus wrote:
I'm asking about your interpretation, your view, what you call "intrinsic awareness". If one takes it to be something other than the aggregates, it is no different from the mistaken view of the self. If it is not different from the aggregates, it cannot be called intrinsic.

Amazing!
This clear, insubstantial knowledge (rig pa)
alone is the absolute pinnacle of all views.

The term "intrinsic" (rang) occurs nowhere in the passage.

The translation I used is from Myrdhin Reynolds and your guru Namkhai Norbu. Wouldn't he have corrected Reynolds if the terminology didn't reflect the original's?

The translation you used is from Reynolds. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu didn't translate anything in that book.

As for ChNN, his description of what rig pa means, is very clear, and it is perfectly in sync with what Malcolm has written above:

"What is introduced in Dzogchen is semnyid, but once we have recieved the introduction and we are really in the state of instant presence [i.e., rig pa] then we talk of rigpa. Until we have real understanding and knowledge we cannot talk of rigpa. Rigpa means concretely having this experience."

and

"Rigpa is the knowledge, the perceiving of conditions of things as they really are."

If so, then why say "It is worthless without your own engagement, just like repeating Madhyamaka views. It's quite boring, actually to listen to it all. There's no energy in this kind of repetition."

As for my take on the matter of inherent enlightenment, the true nature of mind, etc., it is too easy to mistake these expressions as some sort of ultimate self, while the whole point is just to recognise that this whole realm of experiences is unestablished as it is, and that non-abiding is the original nature of appearances.

"This dharma body is everything,
it is like an illusory dream, continuously changing.
The passions of greed, anger, and stupidity are all
invisible, changing, and immaterial, like flowing scum.
Observe clearly the human body.
It is not solid but fragile and inconsistent
(once separated, once reassembled).
All the intentions and all the calculations are empty."
(Dharma Flower Samadhi Sutra, T9n269p286b21-24, tr Nguyen Hien)

1Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.

Amazing!
This clear, insubstantial knowledge (rig pa)
alone is the absolute pinnacle of all views.

The term "intrinsic" (rang) occurs nowhere in the passage.

The translation I used is from Myrdhin Reynolds and your guru Namkhai Norbu. Wouldn't he have corrected Reynolds if the terminology didn't reflect the original's?

The translation you used is from Reynolds. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu didn't translate anything in that book.

As for ChNN, his description of what rig pa means, is very clear, and it is perfectly in sync with what Malcolm has written above:

"What is introduced in Dzogchen is semnyid, but once we have recieved the introduction and we are really in the state of instant presence [i.e., rig pa] then we talk of rigpa. Until we have real understanding and knowledge we cannot talk of rigpa. Rigpa means concretely having this experience."

and

"Rigpa is the knowledge, the perceiving of conditions of things as they really are."

From the book on the translation: “The following translation was done in collaboration with Lama Tharchin of Kongpo. Subsequently, Prof. Namkhai Norbu of the Oriental Institute of the University of Naples was consulted with regard to the difficult problem of translating and interpreting the Tibetan technical terms employed in the Dzogchen texts. ”

Wouldn't you think if ChNN was consulted, he would have gone over the text and suggested some changes? I'm not disputing what Malcolm wrote, just wondering why there is a difference in interpretation when ChNN was helping him out?

Anonymous X wrote:
Wouldn't you think if ChNN was consulted, he would have gone over the text and suggested some changes? I'm not disputing what Malcolm wrote, just wondering why there is a difference in interpretation when ChNN was helping him out?

It is really quite simple. This translation, one of the earliest made of a Dzogchen introduction text, was made in 1985, 32 years ago. Both teachers with whom Reynolds consulted were not fluent in English at the time this translation was made. We have made considerable progress in Dzogchen studies since that time. This should not be construed as a criticism of Reynolds, he did his best with limited resources.

The use of "awareness" for rig pa in Dzogchen translations has become a chronic issue, one that causes a great deal of misunderstanding, and one it seems few translators have the courage to face. There are really no good words in English which capture the full semantic range of the term rig pa as it is used in Dzogchen, just as "avocado sauce" does not really capture the meaning of the term "guacamole" (from Nahuatl ahuacamolli, from ahuacatl ‘avocado’ + molli ‘sauce.'). Given this, it is as useful to translate rig pa as "awareness" as it would be to translate rig pa as "guacamole."

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Anonymous X wrote:
Wouldn't you think if ChNN was consulted, he would have gone over the text and suggested some changes? I'm not disputing what Malcolm wrote, just wondering why there is a difference in interpretation when ChNN was helping him out?

It is really quite simple. This translation, one of the earliest made of a Dzogchen introduction text, was made in 1985, 32 years ago. Both teachers with whom Reynolds consulted were not fluent in English at the time this translation was made. We have made considerable progress in Dzogchen studies since that time. This should not be construed as a criticism of Reynolds, he did his best with limited resources.

The use of "awareness" for rig pa in Dzogchen translations has become a chronic issue, one that causes a great deal of misunderstanding, and one it seems few translators have the courage to face. There are really no good words in English which capture the full semantic range of the term rig pa as it is used in Dzogchen, just as "avocado sauce" does not really capture the meaning of the term "guacamole" (from Nahuatl ahuacamolli, from ahuacatl ‘avocado’ + molli ‘sauce.'). Given this, it is as useful to translate rig pa as "awareness" as it would be to translate rig pa as "guacamole."

I get your point, but ChNN also uses the term awareness.
Is there another more recent translation of this treatise that you can recommend?

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Anonymous X wrote:
Wouldn't you think if ChNN was consulted, he would have gone over the text and suggested some changes? I'm not disputing what Malcolm wrote, just wondering why there is a difference in interpretation when ChNN was helping him out?

It is really quite simple. This translation, one of the earliest made of a Dzogchen introduction text, was made in 1985, 32 years ago. Both teachers with whom Reynolds consulted were not fluent in English at the time this translation was made. We have made considerable progress in Dzogchen studies since that time. This should not be construed as a criticism of Reynolds, he did his best with limited resources.

The use of "awareness" for rig pa in Dzogchen translations has become a chronic issue, one that causes a great deal of misunderstanding, and one it seems few translators have the courage to face. There are really no good words in English which capture the full semantic range of the term rig pa as it is used in Dzogchen, just as "avocado sauce" does not really capture the meaning of the term "guacamole" (from Nahuatl ahuacamolli, from ahuacatl ‘avocado’ + molli ‘sauce.'). Given this, it is as useful to translate rig pa as "awareness" as it would be to translate rig pa as "guacamole."

I get your point, but ChNN also uses the term awareness.
Is there another more recent translation of this treatise that you can recommend?

There is Gyurme Dorje's, but it suffers from the same issue. Awareness is an inadequate, unattested, unjustified rendering for rig pa. I am afraid we are stuck with it until enough people have studied enough primary commentaries so the tides shift in a better direction.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.